Can the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) afford to lose the support of younger voters?
Nieh Yung-chen (聶永真), who designed President Tsai Ing-wen’s (蔡英文) “Light Up Taiwan” election campaign, yesterday told the DPP that the party “cannot afford to lose the support of the people who hold high expectations for the DPP,” and even more so if these are the same young people who ousted the previous administration because of its failure to keep up with social and political progress.
While some continued to espouse their views in a public hearing at the legislature in Taipei yesterday, thousands of people who support same-sex marriage gathered outside the building to exert pressure on and voice support for lawmakers, many of whom have reportedly received nonstop telephone calls from groups opposed to same-sex marriage and have begun to de-emphasize their former outright support.
It could be seen as a step forward for Taiwan. What is now being debated is not whether same-sex marriage should be allowed, but whether separate legislation for same-sex marriage should be drafted or if the Civil Code should be amended. Still, the decision is minor in the face of the formidable wall blocking the way to true equality.
What is the point of a different law for
same-sex marriage when it in fact promotes exclusion and segregation in the name of tolerance?
There are also proposals to draft a law for same-sex partnerships, which is no less discriminatory if the proposed law does not apply to all partnerships, including heterosexual, but is restricted to same-sex couples.
The groups that are opposed to same-sex marriage have been invoking special legislation for Aborigines, people with disabilities and special protections designed to empower women to justify the proposal for special legislation to allow same-sex marriage, saying it is no more discriminatory than those measures. It is a false equivalency.
The aim of the special laws is to guarantee additional rights for minorities and vulnerable groups who are more often than not under-protected by regular regulations. It is to avoid taking equality at face value when providing the same conditions for groups that are evidently different in their starting points and social positions relative to readily accessible rights and privileges.
Same-sex couples do not need, nor are they demanding, additional rights; they are only asking for inclusion.
What has the Tsai administration done so far to make good on its campaign promise to support marriage equality?
The DPP yesterday again issued a statement claiming that its support for marriage equality “has not budged,” and that it hopes there would be more “conversation and tolerance in society as various related bills are being discussed in the legislature.”
For a party that holds both the presidency and the legislative majority, the statement was hypocritical to the point of being infuriating: Actions speak louder than words.
It is hard to understand why a High-level Policy Coordination Meeting between the president, the Cabinet and the DPP caucus would have decided to railroad the controversial amendments to the labor law, while remaining unnecessarily cautious on same-sex marriage, as the DPP has proclaimed its support for gay rights as part of its “progressiveness.”
It is not that these predominantly young people who took to the street yesterday were demanding something out of their reach; they were merely calling for campaign promises to be fulfilled.
Dragging the debate on longer would cost the administration its legitimacy, even if in the end the bill is passed, as it would be seen as succumbing to pressure rather than acting with determination out of a belief in equality.
Jan. 1 marks a decade since China repealed its one-child policy. Just 10 days before, Peng Peiyun (彭珮雲), who long oversaw the often-brutal enforcement of China’s family-planning rules, died at the age of 96, having never been held accountable for her actions. Obituaries praised Peng for being “reform-minded,” even though, in practice, she only perpetuated an utterly inhumane policy, whose consequences have barely begun to materialize. It was Vice Premier Chen Muhua (陳慕華) who first proposed the one-child policy in 1979, with the endorsement of China’s then-top leaders, Chen Yun (陳雲) and Deng Xiaoping (鄧小平), as a means of avoiding the
The last foreign delegation Nicolas Maduro met before he went to bed Friday night (January 2) was led by China’s top Latin America diplomat. “I had a pleasant meeting with Qiu Xiaoqi (邱小琪), Special Envoy of President Xi Jinping (習近平),” Venezuela’s soon-to-be ex-president tweeted on Telegram, “and we reaffirmed our commitment to the strategic relationship that is progressing and strengthening in various areas for building a multipolar world of development and peace.” Judging by how minutely the Central Intelligence Agency was monitoring Maduro’s every move on Friday, President Trump himself was certainly aware of Maduro’s felicitations to his Chinese guest. Just
A recent piece of international news has drawn surprisingly little attention, yet it deserves far closer scrutiny. German industrial heavyweight Siemens Mobility has reportedly outmaneuvered long-entrenched Chinese competitors in Southeast Asian infrastructure to secure a strategic partnership with Vietnam’s largest private conglomerate, Vingroup. The agreement positions Siemens to participate in the construction of a high-speed rail link between Hanoi and Ha Long Bay. German media were blunt in their assessment: This was not merely a commercial win, but has symbolic significance in “reshaping geopolitical influence.” At first glance, this might look like a routine outcome of corporate bidding. However, placed in
China often describes itself as the natural leader of the global south: a power that respects sovereignty, rejects coercion and offers developing countries an alternative to Western pressure. For years, Venezuela was held up — implicitly and sometimes explicitly — as proof that this model worked. Today, Venezuela is exposing the limits of that claim. Beijing’s response to the latest crisis in Venezuela has been striking not only for its content, but for its tone. Chinese officials have abandoned their usual restrained diplomatic phrasing and adopted language that is unusually direct by Beijing’s standards. The Chinese Ministry of Foreign Affairs described the
RSS